It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Wins New Hampshire but The Lame Strean Media Says Hilary Got the Delegates

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
So I was looking at the delegates won in New Hamshire, google says Bernie won more. I thought, cool he wins the delegates, but then Fox and MSNBC is reporting that Hilary won hundreds of delegates, I don't understand. This is what they are talking about.

dailycaller.com...

I know there are super delegates, but I don't get it, can someone help me out with this ?



edit on 10-2-2016 by Medicator because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2016 by Medicator because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Medicator

Your links aren't working, but I asked a question about delegates yesterday and a fellow ATSr pointed me in the right direction. Here's a helpful link:

www.washingtonpost.com...




These delegates are supposed to take their cue from the voters who cast ballots during their states primaries and caucuses, though each party's rules make it possible for multiple rounds of balloting and significant horse trading if no candidate is able to muster a majority on the first ballot.

edit on 10-2-2016 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yeah I messed it up, Im trying to fix it, Ill check it out thanks.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The Democrat Party splits the delegates on percentage of vote and super delegates go where they want to.
edit on 10-2-2016 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
This says it all



In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

Read more: dailycaller.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The day "they" gave the common man (and women too, much later) the right to vote is the day our vote stopped counting, imho. Any which way and/or loose doesn't change a thing. I have no answers either.

edit on 10/2/16 by LightSpeedDriver because: correction


ETA: US elections, from some of what I read on ATS, are complicated and....well...let me be kind here....somewhat non-transparent for outsiders. Much money needed for "the campaign trail" to get folks to all wave their flag in support, a lot of talk and a few other things mixed in for good measure. Then tyhere's all those slick ads on tv.

I must admit to being confused as to why people would exhibit the same behaviour year after year, expecting fundamental change, while said change never comes.

Then again, I'm English, I've seen many people waving flags at the royal family. Strange days...
edit on 10/2/16 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

edit on 10/2/16 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo2



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
oops already a thread about this, cease now thanks.....



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Remember these are party primaries. Political parties in the US can chose their representative anyway they want. Most like the Libertarians just pick them at a meeting. For some reason the GOP and DNC have this odd primary system where rules very from state to state.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Think of it like "earned delegates" and "independent delegates".

The Democratic party's superdelegates are basically party insiders, most who have high political positions like current of former mayors, governors, and members of their legislatures. These superdelegates can pledge their support for the candidate of their choosing, and thus, are "independent" of the voting process. Though they can also hold off and decide based on the winners of the primaries and caucuses. The actual primaries and caucuses determine the "earned" delegates by way of vote. This is what all of the campaigning is about.

I don't know all of the numbers here, so I apologize in advance. But a large portion of the superdelegates have already pledged support for Hillary. This is why those early endorsements are important. Not simply because of the endorsement itself, but because many of them are superdelegates too.

This was the gameplan all along. Hillary was trying to collect enough superdelegates beforehand so that the primaries would be a near formality. And it's working from that end. Unfortunately for her and the insiders, the voters have completely rebelled against this. And if the party leaders push too hard, they risk losing all of these voters in the general election. No point in the party picking a candidate who is hated by the majority of its traditional voters.
edit on 10-2-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a meteor land on all the candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike.

but....

I think if Bernie wins the majority of the State's popular votes but loses the nomination to Hilary because of delegates, people are going to flip out.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Ok, here's a little more info that explains it even better.

Clinton had a razor-thin victory in Iowa followed up by a crushing defeat in New Hampshire, putting her pledged delegates of 32 behind Sanders’s 36. However, Clinton has an imposing lead over Sanders thanks to her 45-to-1 superdelegate advantage. She now has 431 delegates of all types supporting her, while Sanders only has 52, according to CNN.

There are 712 superdelegates in the DNC primaries. A Democratic presidential candidate needs 2,383 delegates of any type out of the 4,763 total to win the nomination.

www.rt.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Damn. That's some unfortunate news... Well there's still a long way to go and this is definitely a promising start.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

It's to build support from as many people in the electorate as possible. Just picking someone without giving potential voters a say in the matter destroys the illusion of "democracy". But doing it State by State gets citizensinvolved in the election cycle and serves as a great way to promote the parties and their current messages.

Just imagine if the Green Party and Libertarian Party had 50 separate primaries and the media attention that can come with them. Those parties would have much more popularity.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Damn. That's some unfortunate news... Well there's still a long way to go and this is definitely a promising start.


I agree. I wasn't joking before when I said the Democratic establishment was doing everything possible to get Hillary elected. And Bernie isn't exaggerating when he says we'll need a political revolution and that we need like-minded people in other positions.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yeah the problem with rooting out corruption is that it's like pulling weeds. It's backbreaking and they get everywhere...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

Read more: dailycaller.com...


And this is why I am so pissed off, of how easy it is for them to rig this election.

Our votes don't count!

With Hillary getting 394 votes before any voting is even cast. Supper Delegates my ( snip ) This should be illegal.

The government has already chosen their new puppet and We The People do not have any say or vote in this corrupt process.

We need to do away with the Super Delegates once for all.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Well actually, according to the numbers that enlightenedservant pointed out, we DO have a say. It's just REALLY lopsided in favor of their say.


There are 712 superdelegates in the DNC primaries. A Democratic presidential candidate needs 2,383 delegates of any type out of the 4,763 total to win the nomination.


2383 - 712 = 1671 more regular delegates needed of the remaining 4051 regular delegates.

See, it's only an advantage. It's not promising, but it IS beatable.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Delegates, electoral college it's all bull#. Popular vote should be all that matters.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: matafuchs


In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

Read more: dailycaller.com...


And this is why I am so pissed off, of how easy it is for them to rig this election.

Our votes don't count!

With Hillary getting 394 votes before any voting is even cast. Supper Delegates my ( snip ) This should be illegal.

The government has already chosen their new puppet and We The People do not have any say or vote in this corrupt process.

We need to do away with the Super Delegates once for all.


You can not make it illegal for an organization to decide how they choose a candidate. They could do it based on how many baskets each could make and it would not be illegal. You can not regulate how a Boy Scout Troop, a company or political party goes about choosing who represents them. Interesting you would prefer government interference.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Very true. This is another reason why we need more people in the system itself. Protests and boycotts are decent, but they're basically asking people in power to make changes. But if we can get a large bloc of like minded people in different positions across the country, we can change the rules directly.

I've even imagined a "youth" revolt in the Democratic Party that overtakes the establishment by sheer numbers. But it's still hard to do that because the party has seniority rules when it comes to things like leadership positions in Congress. It basically rewards loyalty to the party as opposed to loyalty to a cause or specific policy.

A 3rd Party would be better in that regard, except that the 2 major parties have rigged the laws to heavily favor incumbents and their parties, especially through things like redistricting. It's a system that can only be overcome through numbers and a long term, sustained campaign.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join